Euthanasia is such a controversial topic. Is it morally right, ethically right? Is it morally wrong, ethically wrong? Many groups oppose such a idea while others embark on the notion. Dr. Kevorkian once mainstreamed a trivialized issue. And even went to jail for it. He was wrongly acquitted. I understand I am writing to proponents siding with disability advocates and the Catholic Church. Whom completely disagree with the "easy death" method. But then if the backers want to be included in the "wrong death" scenario then look no further than the mirror. Dr. Kevorkian displayed acts of wisdom and ethical-flawlessness. He was known as the honest, candid doctor, while other doctors are like Batman, act in the light of dawn. Either way, euthanasia is necessary to practice medicine.
In 1980, a paper, "Declaration on Euthanasia" produced by Cardinal Frejo Seper, lays the fundamental position on euthanasia in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Seper states "..No one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease." The Catholic Church has one of the most didactic stance on the issue presented. They rule out mercy killing or the casual saying, "easy-death." Seper further states that "..For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity” The Church's view on such, is understandable, and even admirable. Because there are no exceptions, and no matter the circumstance, the group is assertive and proper in its stance. Passive euthanasia is accepted but is that just God's course? Or what about a man who is terminally sick, and he commits active euthanasia on himself. What if that alone was God's course and not him passively dying? The Church is conceded with God's course. But how does the Church know what is God's course and what is not.
In the scholarly article, “Why Disability Rights Movements Do Not Support Euthanasia,” by Dr. Wolbring, quotes "We believe that the legalization of euthanasia will force people to be euthanized in a misbegotten effort to do the right thing: save their loved ones from financial ruin, remove family members from the care taker role, cease to be a burden on the state.” In this, Dr. Wolbring, speaks about a another sort of metaphysical side effect of euthanasia. A negative perception of a characteristic. If one dies, then one other individual thinks that this individual that has died, has life that is not valued. In simpler terms, if a terminally ill person commits suicide, than another person in the same state can think life is valueless as well. A another understandable point, but is weak in the "grand scheme" of alleviating original suffering.
On the defense of euthanasia, Dr. Admiraal's "Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way,” states that euthanasia should be practiced "openly and unashamedly" in the country of the Dutch. A place where euthanasia is practiced legally and occurs through "special" tests and confirmation through Dr. Admiraal's and his team. Dr. Admiraal says that, “as doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy. The first duty entails that we should seek to restore patients to health and, if we can’t, that we should try to reduce their suffering. The second duty entails that we listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of our patients.” Active euthanasia encompasses the latter and all the above. The ending to his patients life is normal, and assisting people that do not want to survive on machines and suffer everyday is simply, alleviating. A plea of a lifetime. He then states “to fail the practice of voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” The main goal of any physician is to assist the patient, and if the patient wants to flee, then the doctor must want aid in his or her request. As he said of patients, “they can count on their doctors when they need them most.”
If people want to die, then let them. And it SHOULD be the doctors responsibility, to aid them in suicide, because doctors need to alleviate pain and suffering for people, and sometimes active euthanasia is the answer. The rationale by the patients are probably well executed since they went and checked through the all the possible choices. Hours and probable days were spent in order to make, what some call the biggest decision to make. No one has the right to make the resolution for the ones who are "confident" in the euthanasia choice. Kevorkian is a 100 percent right when he states doctors are cowards. Those who shall not actively participate in euthanasia are called the latter, along with those who shall not do it, in the light of day. My friend Loren Hansen makes a brilliant yet lucid argument when he states, "Hopefully, with the recession of religion on the rise in the United States and around the world, and the recession of the moral values associated with them, Dr. Kevorkian's viewpoint and philosophy on physician assisted suicide will eventually prevail within my lifetime.'' Basically, stating that religion and "moral values" get in the way of making a rational yet radical decision in our countries' healthcare laws. But what are moral values? To some are not, moral values, euthanasia? As they assist people to end suffering. Does that not seem moral? To help?
Many say that Kevorkian is a evil disposable human. Sort of like a "Neo-Nazi." But I could not agree more with classmates, in which he brings up the point where Kevorkian only simply gives a viable option, no demand or persecution. Simply, just following the oath as he swore, in the 50's. Kevorkian needs to be a national figure because the above, provides sufficient reasoning. He helped them.
In summary, the option must be available for anyone. First maybe a intricate complex test must given out and maybe some time to evaluate, say 1 month? Active euthanasia is morally perfect and proponents of the opposite are just ignorant. Maybe because an higher authority says its wrong or perhaps, its too harsh to go past the epidermis of discussion.
Euthanasia is seen as a way out. But the topic at-hand is certainly tricky. But, in truth, needs to be a vital option, for patients with a advanced directive or a person that can have the ability to give informed consent. Eligibility for euthanasia should obviously run through some tests: special cases, recovery possibilities, patient-autonomys, and/or plausible mind conditions. Maybe the intricacies are too huge to overcome, or maybe the answer is simple. But what is right from wrong is evident. Any personal living with a terminal illness has the right to take the easy way out, rather than suffer and suffer they may not. Euthanasia is a freedom and a freedom we must all have, as a right to live, is a right to death. A definite goal in medicine is euthanasia, something that needs to be fought for.
In 1980, a paper, "Declaration on Euthanasia" produced by Cardinal Frejo Seper, lays the fundamental position on euthanasia in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Seper states "..No one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease." The Catholic Church has one of the most didactic stance on the issue presented. They rule out mercy killing or the casual saying, "easy-death." Seper further states that "..For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity” The Church's view on such, is understandable, and even admirable. Because there are no exceptions, and no matter the circumstance, the group is assertive and proper in its stance. Passive euthanasia is accepted but is that just God's course? Or what about a man who is terminally sick, and he commits active euthanasia on himself. What if that alone was God's course and not him passively dying? The Church is conceded with God's course. But how does the Church know what is God's course and what is not.
In the scholarly article, “Why Disability Rights Movements Do Not Support Euthanasia,” by Dr. Wolbring, quotes "We believe that the legalization of euthanasia will force people to be euthanized in a misbegotten effort to do the right thing: save their loved ones from financial ruin, remove family members from the care taker role, cease to be a burden on the state.” In this, Dr. Wolbring, speaks about a another sort of metaphysical side effect of euthanasia. A negative perception of a characteristic. If one dies, then one other individual thinks that this individual that has died, has life that is not valued. In simpler terms, if a terminally ill person commits suicide, than another person in the same state can think life is valueless as well. A another understandable point, but is weak in the "grand scheme" of alleviating original suffering.
On the defense of euthanasia, Dr. Admiraal's "Listening and Helping to Die: The Dutch Way,” states that euthanasia should be practiced "openly and unashamedly" in the country of the Dutch. A place where euthanasia is practiced legally and occurs through "special" tests and confirmation through Dr. Admiraal's and his team. Dr. Admiraal says that, “as doctors we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy. The first duty entails that we should seek to restore patients to health and, if we can’t, that we should try to reduce their suffering. The second duty entails that we listen closely to, and respect, the wishes of our patients.” Active euthanasia encompasses the latter and all the above. The ending to his patients life is normal, and assisting people that do not want to survive on machines and suffer everyday is simply, alleviating. A plea of a lifetime. He then states “to fail the practice of voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient.” The main goal of any physician is to assist the patient, and if the patient wants to flee, then the doctor must want aid in his or her request. As he said of patients, “they can count on their doctors when they need them most.”
If people want to die, then let them. And it SHOULD be the doctors responsibility, to aid them in suicide, because doctors need to alleviate pain and suffering for people, and sometimes active euthanasia is the answer. The rationale by the patients are probably well executed since they went and checked through the all the possible choices. Hours and probable days were spent in order to make, what some call the biggest decision to make. No one has the right to make the resolution for the ones who are "confident" in the euthanasia choice. Kevorkian is a 100 percent right when he states doctors are cowards. Those who shall not actively participate in euthanasia are called the latter, along with those who shall not do it, in the light of day. My friend Loren Hansen makes a brilliant yet lucid argument when he states, "Hopefully, with the recession of religion on the rise in the United States and around the world, and the recession of the moral values associated with them, Dr. Kevorkian's viewpoint and philosophy on physician assisted suicide will eventually prevail within my lifetime.'' Basically, stating that religion and "moral values" get in the way of making a rational yet radical decision in our countries' healthcare laws. But what are moral values? To some are not, moral values, euthanasia? As they assist people to end suffering. Does that not seem moral? To help?
Many say that Kevorkian is a evil disposable human. Sort of like a "Neo-Nazi." But I could not agree more with classmates, in which he brings up the point where Kevorkian only simply gives a viable option, no demand or persecution. Simply, just following the oath as he swore, in the 50's. Kevorkian needs to be a national figure because the above, provides sufficient reasoning. He helped them.
In summary, the option must be available for anyone. First maybe a intricate complex test must given out and maybe some time to evaluate, say 1 month? Active euthanasia is morally perfect and proponents of the opposite are just ignorant. Maybe because an higher authority says its wrong or perhaps, its too harsh to go past the epidermis of discussion.
Euthanasia is seen as a way out. But the topic at-hand is certainly tricky. But, in truth, needs to be a vital option, for patients with a advanced directive or a person that can have the ability to give informed consent. Eligibility for euthanasia should obviously run through some tests: special cases, recovery possibilities, patient-autonomys, and/or plausible mind conditions. Maybe the intricacies are too huge to overcome, or maybe the answer is simple. But what is right from wrong is evident. Any personal living with a terminal illness has the right to take the easy way out, rather than suffer and suffer they may not. Euthanasia is a freedom and a freedom we must all have, as a right to live, is a right to death. A definite goal in medicine is euthanasia, something that needs to be fought for.